Anti-Semitism In France!

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadgetlady, a cloak is a cloak is a cloak. You don't need context to correctly interpret that word.

That's correct, but we don't wear cloaks! If I read a story to my kids and the word "cloak" is used, I stop and say, "That's like a coat or a cape." So given that we don't wear cloaks, you have to interpret the verse FOR OUR TIME differently than was done DURING THEIR TIME. In other words, if I just said, "I don't have to do anything for the poor because I don't own a cloak", I would be disregarding the whole teaching -- throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in effect -- instead of applying the teaching to the world I live in. To bring it into deeper context, the cloak was your method of surviving in bad weather. You didn't have a nice warm Lexus to step into. You were travelling and it was your way of surviving. If you ignore the CONTEXT of the time and just think it applies to the physical garment, you're missing the teaching.

[anonemouse 1]

Therefore, it can't be interpreted literally. If that statement has to be interpreted in the context of the time it was written, shouldn't the rest of the Bible? You can't pick and choose which statements should be interpreted literally or contextually. Either they should all be interpreted in the context of the time they were written (in other words, shouldn't be taken literally in today's world) or they all should be interpreted literally. The Bible may have been a literal document when it was first written, but in today's world it would be shortsighted to interpret it literally.

[gadgetlady 4]

Therefore, it can't be interpreted literally. If that statement has to be interpreted in the context of the time it was written, shouldn't the rest of the Bible? You can't pick and choose which statements should be interpreted literally or contextually. Either they should all be interpreted in the context of the time they were written (in other words, shouldn't be taken literally in today's world) or they all should be interpreted literally. The Bible may have been a literal document when it was first written, but in today's world it would be shortsighted to interpret it literally.

That's a misapplication of terminology. God's creation of the world in six days isn't a context issue. Jesus' resurrection on the third day isn't a context issue. The commandment about not coveting my neighbor's ox or donkey IS a context issue; my neighbor doesn't have an ox or donkey, but he does have a really nice Beemer. God LITERALLY meant ox or donkey THEN. Contextually, however, He means the Beemer NOW.

I am CONFIDENT you can see the difference.

[Carlene 12]

That's correct, but we don't wear cloaks! If I read a story to my kids and the word "cloak" is used, I stop and say, "That's like a coat or a cape." So given that we don't wear cloaks, you have to interpret the verse FOR OUR TIME differently than was done DURING THEIR TIME. In other words, if I just said, "I don't have to do anything for the poor because I don't own a cloak", I would be disregarding the whole teaching -- throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in effect -- instead of applying the teaching to the world I live in. To bring it into deeper context, the cloak was your method of surviving in bad weather. You didn't have a nice warm Lexus to step into. You were travelling and it was your way of surviving. If you ignore the CONTEXT of the time and just think it applies to the physical garment, you're missing the teaching.

Nouns (as in cloak or coat) really aren't good examples of literal thinking. You can, for one thing, show a person a picture of a cloak and a coat, to prove your point (that a cloak and a coat are pretty much interchangeable). Not so with ideology.

[anonemouse 1]

The commandment about not coveting my neighbor's ox or donkey IS a context issue; my neighbor doesn't have an ox or donkey, but he does have a really nice Beemer. God LITERALLY meant ox or donkey THEN. Contextually, however, He means the Beemer NOW.

I am CONFIDENT you can see the difference.

Yes, but no one (in my opinion) is arguing over whether God literally or figuratively created the world or that Jesus was resurrected. What people are arguing over is whether Biblical standards and law should be interpreted literally in today's world. Ron says that the Bible should be interpreted literally (unless it is a verse that he thinks should be interpreted within context). Pretty much everyone else is arguing that Biblical standards and law should be interpreted within the context of the time they were written (in other words, they aren't literal in today's world), and that those same standards and laws may not necessarily hold true in today's world, if interpreted literally.

[Carlene 12]

That's a misapplication of terminology. God's creation of the world in six days isn't a context issue. Jesus' resurrection on the third day isn't a context issue. The commandment about not coveting my neighbor's ox or donkey IS a context issue; my neighbor doesn't have an ox or donkey, but he does have a really nice Beemer. God LITERALLY meant ox or donkey THEN. Contextually, however, He means the Beemer NOW.

I am CONFIDENT you can see the difference.

You are not arguing context. You are still arguing semantics. Don't convet your neighbor's possessions - period. Virtually no one would argue that it's permissible to covet an automobile, but not a donkey. Again, nouns do not lend themselves well to this discussion.

[BJean 16]

Literal means literal. You can't say that something is literal and then say that it isn't literal because the words need to be changed to fit the meaning of words today. Sure, we can understand that it makes sense to use a different term today for cloak, like maybe coat, but that would keep the phrase from being literal. I don't understand all this arguing - literal means literal. If there are exceptions to the Bible's words being literal, that's fine with me. I'm taking the whole thing on faith anyway. Because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to say that the Bible is literal... "except when"...."context of".... blah, blah, blah.

Ron you can't understand how someone can believe in the Bible and Jesus without believing that the Bible is literal and came directly from the mouth of God. I say that you are the one who is unbelievable and whose religion I find suspect. What you have decided about the Bible "proving" that the Bible is literal is gobbledegook as far as I'm concerned. But just because you believe it doesn't threaten my spiritualism or my belief in God, the resurrection, or the Bible in any way. Whatever floats your boat, I say. But if someone someday is able to show you in a convincing way that you are wrong about your "proof" your ministry may just be in trouble.

TOM you are welcomed to speak for me at any time. I'm a big girl (literally and figuratively) and I can straighten you out if you are incorrect. In the above case, you were correct.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Here is a perfect example that I used previously. Jesus refered to those Believers who he exhorts to "eat my body and drink my blood". Since canibalism is obviously not the meaning since there is absolutely no mention of the practice, which is not disputed by any Bible scholars, we know it is not to be taken literally. Therefore we look for the real meaning in the context in which the was said, to whom and for what purpose.

Jesus also said, "I am the bread of life"! Well since Jesus is obviously not a load of Wonder Bread, it is obvious he is not talking about being a loaf of bread literally. Again, we look for the real meaning in the context in which the was said, to whom and for what purpose.

Put in into todays language! I could say, "I feel like garbage"! Since I am not garbage, I obviously can't mean that literally . . . you get the picture.

The rule of interpretation used by virtually students of the scriptures is that you take everything literally except where the context makes it obvious it is not literal, as with the above examples.

This in no way changes the literal understanding of scripture. It underscores it with common sense and logic.

Yes, but no one (in my opinion) is arguing over whether God literally or figuratively created the world or that Jesus was resurrected. What people are arguing over is whether Biblical standards and law should be interpreted literally in today's world. Ron says that the Bible should be interpreted literally (unless it is a verse that he thinks should be interpreted within context). Pretty much everyone else is arguing that Biblical standards and law should be interpreted within the context of the time they were written (in other words, they aren't literal in today's world), and that those same standards and laws may not necessarily hold true in today's world, if interpreted literally.

[gadgetlady 4]

Nouns (as in cloak or coat) really aren't good examples of literal thinking. You can, for one thing, show a person a picture of a cloak and a coat, to prove your point (that a cloak and a coat are pretty much interchangeable). Not so with ideology.

But you also have to understand the context of what cloak meant to someone during that time. If I lost my "cloak" at dinner tonight, it wouldn't be a big deal. If a traveller lost his cloak 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, it could mean his death.

Let me give you another example. In Luke 11, Jesus tells of a man who knocks on his neighbor's door at midnight asking for three loaves of bread. Now for me, this wouldn't be a big deal because I'm up at midnight. But I have electricity, a computer, my kids are asleep in their closed rooms upstairs, and I'm a night owl. In the CONTEXT of the time, you have to realize what happened. Everyone in the family was asleep, in one room, on mats rolled out on the floor. The father had to step over family members to get to the door. The knock woke everyone up. When the Scripture says "midnight", you might think "oh, that's a few hours after everyone went to bed", but more likely everyone went to bed at sundown. So this neighbor's knocking on the door was a HUGE deal. And you also have to understand the nature of Jewish hospitality, and what it means when you have an unexpected guest, and why someone would knock on your door at midnight wanting bread.

If you don't take CONTEXT into consideration, you just will not get the impact of this story.

[Carlene 12]

Pretty much everyone else is arguing that Biblical standards and law should be interpreted within the context of the time they were written (in other words, they aren't literal in today's world), and that those same standards and laws may not necessarily hold true in today's world, if interpreted literally.

I'm not convinced they were always meant literally, even in the time the Bible was written. Much of the Bible is written in parables, which were NEVER meant to be taken literally.

At any rate, I still maintain that a literal interpretation can never be dependent on context. The two are mutually exclusive. Literal means absolutely, word-for-word...context means maybe, depending on the circumstances.

[Ron Cusano 0]

If you can't believe that the Bible is 100% accurate and means what it says, you might just as well use it for kindling in your fireplace, because there goes your spiritual foundation.

You are not grasping something! The Bible is the ONLY sourse of trustworthy information about God, Jesus and the way of salvation. There are no other reliable records. If you say you believe in jesus and what He did, but discount the Bible, then how do you even know who he is or what he did? What are you basing your belief system on? A non-literal Bible that you can't trust to be literal and accurate? Think about it??

Literal means literal. You can't say that something is literal and then say that it isn't literal because the words need to be changed to fit the meaning of words today. Sure, we can understand that it makes sense to use a different term today for cloak, like maybe coat, but that would keep the phrase from being literal. I don't understand all this arguing - literal means literal. If there are exceptions to the Bible's words being literal, that's fine with me. I'm taking the whole thing on faith anyway. Because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to say that the Bible is literal... "except when"...."context of".... blah, blah, blah.

Ron you can't understand how someone can believe in the Bible and Jesus without believing that the Bible is literal and came directly from the mouth of God. I say that you are the one who is unbelievable and whose religion I find suspect. What you have decided about the Bible "proving" that the Bible is literal is gobbledegook as far as I'm concerned. But just because you believe it doesn't threaten my spiritualism or my belief in God, the resurrection, or the Bible in any way. Whatever floats your boat, I say. But if someone someday is able to show you in a convincing way that you are wrong about your "proof" your ministry may just be in trouble.

TOM you are welcomed to speak for me at any time. I'm a big girl (literally and figuratively) and I can straighten you out if you are incorrect. In the above case, you were correct.

[BJean 16]

Even about the word literal, we're arguing semantics.

I don't know that anyone here is arguing that if we take the Bible literally, and we don't we adapt the Biblical words to today's needs, that we are going to miss the message. I would imagine that we all pretty much agree that we must adapt the Bible's words to today's vernacular so that we can understand the messages.

The argument started out as one person saying that the Bible proves that the Bible is a literal document. Obviously it isn't and even the people who say that some of the Biblical teachings can be taken literally, they agree that some cannot. So that pretty much wraps it up, doesn't it?

[anonemouse 1]

If you can't believe that the Bible is 100% accurate and means what it says, you might just as well use it for kindling in your fireplace, because there goes your spiritual foundation.

No, Ron, there goes YOUR spiritual foundation. Other people realize that the message as a whole is more important than the words used. Getting bogged down in whether something is or isn't literal only blinds people to the message behind the words. If they understand the overall message, that's great. Not thinking the entire Bible should be taken literally does not make someone a worse Christian than someone that takes the entire kit and caboodle literally, word for word. YOU don't even take the Bible literally, Ron. You've said that several times. If you are interpreting the words of the Bible in the context of the time they were written, you aren't taking the words literally. "Literal" and "in context" are mutually exclusive, like Carlene said.

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm not convinced they were always meant literally, even in the time the Bible was written. Much of the Bible is written in parables, which were NEVER meant to be taken literally.

At any rate, I still maintain that a literal interpretation can never be dependent on context. The two are mutually exclusive. Literal means absolutely, word-for-word...context means maybe, depending on the circumstances.

First, when Jesus told a parable, the Bible prefaces it with something along the lines of "Jesus told this parable". So it is what it says it is. A parable.

Second, just because one takes the Bible literally doesn't mean one can't use context to understand it and apply it to modern life. When the Bible talks about "denari", it literally means "denari". But in context, it means "the currency of the time". I could find a bazillion other examples but I'm sure you get it.

[Carlene 12]

Here is a perfect example that I used previously. Jesus refered to those Believers who he exhorts to "eat my body and drink my blood". Since canibalism is obviously not the meaning since there is absolutely no mention of the practice, which is not disputed by any Bible scholars, we know it is not to be taken literally.

Catholics DO take the command literally. Remember the doctrine of transubstantiation? The bread and wine are consecrated and literally changed into the body and blood of Christ, at each and every Mass.